The Sleepwalkers (217 page)

The
italicized
passage
under
the
first
heading
states
clearly
that
it
is
admissible
not
only
to
expound
the
Copernican
system,
but
also
to
say
that
as
a
hypothesis
it
is
superior
to
Ptolemy's
.
This
is
"to
speak
with
excellent
good
sense"
so
long
as
we
remain
in
the
domain
of
hypothesis.
Under
the
second
heading
he
paraphrases
the
legislative
decision
of
the
Council
of
Trent
against
interpreting
Scripture
in
ways
contrary
to
tradition
(directed,
of
course,
not
against
Copernicus
but
Luther).
Under
the
third
heading
the
condition
is
stated
which
would
justify
an
exception
to
this
rule
being
made;
to
wit,
that
the
new
cosmology
should
be
"really
proven"
(or
"truly
demonstrated").
Since
no
proof
has
been
shown
to
him,
he
has
"grave
doubts"
whether
such
proof
exists;
and
in
case
of
doubt
the
request
for
reinterpreting
the
Bible
must
be
rejected.
He
had
consulted
Grienberger,
and
Grienberger
must
have
truthfully
informed
him
that
no
physical
proof
for
the
earth's
motion
had
been
adduced.
He
may
have
added
that
the
absence
of
stellar
parallax
and
the
nine
epicycles
ascribed
to
the
earth
alone,
were
rather
in
the
nature
of
a
disproof.

Bellarmine
had
placed
the
burden
of
proof
for
the
Copernican
system
back
where
it
belonged:
on
the
advocates
of
the
system.
There
were
only
two
possibilities
left
to
Galileo:
either
to
supply
the
required
proof,
or
to
agree
that
the
Copernican
system
should
be
treated,
for
the
time
being,
as
a
working
hypothesis.
Bellarmine
had,
in
a
tactful
way,
reopened
the
door
to
this
compromise
in
the
opening
sentence
of
his
letter,
where
he
pretended
that
Galileo
had
"contented
himself
with
speaking
hypothetically
and
not
absolutely",
had
praised
his
prudence,
and
acted
as
if
the
Letters
to
Castelli
and
the
Grand
Duchess,
which
were
before
the
Inquisition,
did
not
exist.

But
Galileo
was
by
now
beyond
listening
to
reason.
For,
by
accepting
the
compromise,
he
would
disclose
to
the
world
that
he
had
no
proof,
and
would
be
"laughed
out
of
court".
Therefore
he
must
reject
it.
It
was
not
enough
to
be
allowed,
and
even
encouraged,
to
teach
the
superiority
of
the
Copernican
over
the
Ptolemaic
hypothesis.
He
must
insist
that
the
Church
endorse
it,
or
reject
it,
absolutely
–
even
at
the
risk
of
the
latter
alternative,
which
Bellarmine's
letter,
Dini's
and
Ciàmpoli's
warnings
must
have
made
clear
to
him.

But
how
can
he
motivate
his
rejection
of
compromise?
How
can
he
refuse
to
produce
proof
and
at
the
same
time
demand
that
the
matter
should
be
treated
as
if
proven?
The
solution
of
the
dilemma
was
to
pretend
that
he
had
the
proof,
but
to
refuse
to
produce
it,
on
the
grounds
that
his
opponents
were
too
stupid,
anyway,
to
understand.
His
answer
to
Bellarmine
was
contained
in
a
letter
written
at
some
date
in
May
to
Cardinal
Dini
(my
italics):

"To
me,
the
surest
and
swiftest
way
to
prove
that
the
position
of
Copernicus
is
not
contrary
to
Scripture
would
be
to
give
a
host
of
proofs
that
it
is
true
and
that
the
contrary
cannot
be
maintained
at
all;
thus,
since
no
truths
can
contradict
one
another,
this
and
the
Bible
must
be
perfectly
harmonious.
But
how
can
I
do
this,
and
not
be
merely
wasting
my
time,
when
those
Peripatetics
who
must
be
convinced
show
themselves
incapable
of
following
even
the
simplest
and
easiest
of
arguments?
..."
³¹

The
truly
staggering
thing
in
this
passage
is
not
its
contemptuous
arrogance,
but
the
fact
that
while
talking
of
"Peripatetics"
it
is
in
fact
aimed
at
Bellarmine;
for
it
is
on
him
and
not
on
the
backwoodsmen,
that
the
decision
depends,
and
it
was
Bellarmine
who
had
challenged
him
to
produce
proof.
Earlier
in
the
same
letter
to
Cardinal
Dini,
he
had
written:

"Eight
days
ago
I
wrote
to
Your
Reverence
in
reply
to
yours
of
the
second
of
May.
My
answer
was
very
brief,
because
I
then
found
myself
(as
now)
among
doctors
and
medicines,
and
much
disturbed
in
body
and
mind
over
many
things,
particularly
by
seeing
no
end
to
these
rumours
set
in
motion
against
me
through
no
fault
of
mine,
and
seemingly
accepted
by
those
higher
up
as
if
I
were
the
originator
of
these
things.
Yet
for
all
of
me
any
discussion
of
the
sacred
Scripture
might
have
lain
dormant
forever;
no
astronomer
or
scientist
who
remained
within
proper
bounds
has
ever
got
into
such
things.
Yet
while
I
follow
the
teachings
of
a
book
accepted
by
the
Church
(sic),
there
come
out
against
me
philosophers
quite
ignorant
of
such
teachings
who
tell
me
that
they
contain
propositions
contrary
to
the
faith.
So
far
as
possible,
I
should
like
to
show
them
that
they
are
mistaken,
but
my
mouth
is
stopped
and
I
am
ordered
not
to
go
into
the
Scriptures.
This
amounts
to
saying
that
Copernicus'
book,
accepted
by
the
Church,
contains
heresies
and
may
be
preached
against
by
anyone
who
pleases
(sic)
while
it
is
forbidden
for
anyone
to
get
into
the
controversy
and
show
that
it
is
not
contrary
to
Scripture..."